Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:06, 5 August 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kombucha article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Food and drink Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Food and Drink task list: edit history watch purge To edit this page, select here Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink: Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish Participate in project-related deletion discussions. Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this. Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here. Provide photographs and images for Category:Misplaced Pages requested images of food Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Pharmacology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Section entitled "Kombucha Drops - Kombucha Extract - Information"

Kombucha drops has been merged and redirected to this article, however, the information appears to be copied and pasted verbatim from this webpage: ]. Per Misplaced Pages:Copyrights, I am removing that information. Edwardian

Neutrality Tag 2/7/11

This article seems to have gone from a pro-kombucha bias, to a series of well-meaning but confusing contradictions, to its current state (as per user:ovaltineplease) in which it slants against kombucha.

There is limited scientific information supporting any health benefits

Frankly, I agree, but limited compared to what?

few studies are being conducted

Most of the sourced studies were removed in these edits, who has the right to add these modifying words to the simple fact that there ARE studies for and there ARE studies against kombucha. Let the facts sit as they are, stop modifying them. 68.3.119.83 (talk) 09:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, in the last 10 years there have been quite a number of studies, in peer reviewed scientific journals, which support health claims, however there has been no double blind studies on humans. I encourage any one with access to scientific literature to simply do a serch of kombucha. This article is quite strongly anti-kombucha; if you held any other food substance to the standards that a few editors here have held kombucha too, then virtually every food would be deadly. There have been far more deaths from contaminated apple cider for example. If you look at the history of this page and its edits, it seems that many people have tried to make edits, but roughly three people are constantly removing those edits to A) keep out any mention of a health benefit B) keep in alarmist and unsubstaniated claims about dangers For B, they cite the American Cancer Society webpage on kombucha, which, no disrespect to the ACS, is not a credible scientific source, and on that webpage there is a mention of one case, which has been thoroughly rebuffed. I have tried to bring these limited few individuals domination over the content of the page to the attention of the wikipedia people, but these few bad actors cannot be deterred. So, thanks to them, in what one of them calls "an effort to bring credibility to wikipedia" after one of their edits, this page is worthless, actually it belies the science, so I would say it is worse than if this page didn't exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.80.198 (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The state of science and avoiding the insertion of personal bias (pro or con).

The statement "Drinking kombucha can cause serious side effects or even death, especially if the tea has become contaminated through improper preparation" keeps getting inserted into the first paragraph, which, besides the fact that its inclusion misrepresents the fact that it has been consumed by millions of people with one possible fatality cited in the available literature, is a factually inaccurate statement. It has never, not one single time, been shown, with any bar of evidence, to be lethal. THis statement seems to is based on a source which cites exactly 1 death associated with kombucha, and this association is only an association. The coroner found the cause of death to be a perforated colon, and lactic acidosis, which was the condition diagnosed in the two cases cites, is caused by many factors (see page on lactic acidosis) and there is no science to support that consuming acidic beverages, or ferments is a possible cause. Correlation does not equal causation, and one case is not even a correlation. Thus the statement that "Kombucha can cause ...death" is not supported by the available evidence. Regarding the potential for the culture to become contaminated and people to get sick from the contamination, no one has ever found the presence of mycotoxins in a kombucha ferment that people's illness was associated with. There is no evidence (other than circumstantial) to support the claim that kombucha can cause death or could have serious side effects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NR biogeochemist (talk • contribs) 19:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

"it has been consumed by millions of people with exactly one possible fatality"? Really, and you have a reliable source for that astonishing claim? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Please do not edit your posts after they have been replied to - it makes understanding the discussion difficult. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

There are many studies to support health benefits of Kombucha. I have cited some in the introduction, but one or two individuals keep removing them, one is stating that "such claims must comply with WP:MEDRS)" I have read the page on sources, and these sources INDIAN JOURNAL OF BIOTECHNOLOGY, BMC COMPLEMENTARY AND ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE, and FOOD & FUNCTION are primary sources with ISI citation indices, and the studies cited are primary literature, that is peer reviewed. The inclusion of these sources reflects the available scientific evidence, and does unequivocally constitute "scientific evidence" for "beneficial effects on health". There are a few journals mentioned in the WP:MEDRS page, but it is nowhere stated that this is an exclusive list. I would kindly ask those objecting to the validity of the inclusion of these sources, to explain why "such claims comply with WP:MEDRS)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by NR biogeochemist (talk • contribs) 19:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

You may well have read WP:MEDRS. You seem not to have understood it. I suggest you read it again, paying particular regard to what it says regarding the relative merits of primary studies and review articles. And no, we don't cite primary studies on rats as evidence for benefits to human health. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

If there is a contentious claim, could someone please below please copy the statement in question and then follow it with a citation to the source from which it is derived? Everything can be sorted by considering the sources. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I would be happy to copy the statement in question and link to the sources: statement in question: "Although kombucha is claimed to have several beneficial effects on health, these claims are not supported by human trials, though none have been performed. Studies have shown that kombucha decreased diabetes progression, LDL cholesterol and cancer formation, and increased wound heeling in rats, and a number of compounds have been found in kombucha that have conclusively been shown to be beneficial to human health , "

The cited sources are: 1: Aloulou A, Hamden K, Elloumi D, etal. 2012. Hypoglycemic and antilipidemic properties of kombucha tea in alloxan-induced diabetic rats. BMC COMPLEMENTARY AND ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE Volume: 12 Article Number: 63 DOI: 10.1186/1472-6882-12-63 2:Aloulou A, Hamden K, Elloumi D, etal. 2012. Hypoglycemic and antilipidemic properties of kombucha tea in alloxan-induced diabetic rats. BMC COMPLEMENTARY AND ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE Volume: 12 Article Number: 63 DOI: 10.1186/1472-6882-12-63 3: Jayabalan R, Chen PN, Hsieh YS. 2011. Effect of solvent fractions of kombucha tea on viability and invasiveness of cancer cells-Characterization of dimethyl 2-(2-hydroxy-2-methoxypropylidine) malonate and vitexin. INDIAN JOURNAL OF BIOTECHNOLOGY Volume: 10 Issue: 1 Pages: 75-82 4: Banerjee D, Hassarajani SA, Maity B et al. 2011. 2010. Comparative healing property of kombucha tea and black tea against indomethacin-induced gastric ulceration in mice: possible mechanism of action. FOOD & FUNCTION Volume: 1 Issue: 3 Pages: 284-293 DOI: 10.1039/c0fo00025f 5: Blanc PJ. 1996. Biotechnology Letters 18 (2) 139-142 6: Bhattacharya S, Manna P, Gachhui R. 2011. Protective effect of kombucha tea against tertiary butyl hydroperoxide induced cytotoxicity and cell death in murine hepatocytes. INDIAN JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY Volume: 49 Issue: 7 Pages: 511-524

As you can see I have NOT claimed "primary studies on rats as evidence for benefits to human health". But it is standard medical and scientific procedure to cite studies on mammals in the context of possible beneficial effects, which adds to the science, and does constitute evidence. This is how the decision to make human trials is decided, and given the difficulties of interpreting the results of human trials is an important part of medical science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NR biogeochemist (talk • contribs) 19:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, now go away and read Misplaced Pages policy on original research. You will have plenty of time to read it, as I expect you shortly to be blocked for blatant violation of Misplaced Pages edit-warring policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The link you provided was not to a page on original research (It was to this "https://en.wikipedia.org/WPOR" ?). Excuse me, I do not see why my conduct can be considered edit-warring. I have backed up every change i have made with a reasoned discussion of the merits of the literature. You keep removing the edits, which is exactly the same conduct as mine, but in contrast you fail to adress the content and do not show that you have read the source material, or investigated the literature on the topic. Please, please, read the primary literature, and stop damaging the content of this page.

Apologies for the typo - see WP:OR. And yes, you have violated policy on edit-warring. Believing that you are right is not legitimate grounds to ignore policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed - NR biogeochemist's edits are inserting bad content in violation of policy. In particular, an extremely strong source would be needed to overturn the statement from the ACS. Alexbrn 21:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Just curious, why would the cited sources above listed by NR biogeochemist constitute original research? Is it against a certain policy to use those sources in this wiki? These responses to NR biogeochemist's post are confusing to me. Hope someone can help me understand why these citations are not admissible. 76.27.36.219 (talk) 06:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe that Andy the Grump's objections to my addition of scientific results in the article with reference to the "Original Research" policies of wikipedia, are due to wikipedia's strong preference for "secondary" sources (for example review articles and meta-analysis) over "primary" sources (including peer-reviewed articles). This general policy does make some sense since there are more often contradictory primary sources than contradicting secondary sources. However, on the same policy page the statement "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages" indicates that this not such an iron policy, and in this case, when there has been a wealth of primary sources (from peer-reviewed ISI certified journals) and no secondary source of equivalent quality for 15 years, good judgement and common sense favors their inclusion. Moreover, I would like to say that instead of constantly telling people to read a policy page, which is long, you could use your own words to explain what you are referring to. This is a community and we should try to help people and the information in improve wikipedia. signed NR biogeochemist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.235.46.44 (talk) 13:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

POV

I've added a POV tag to the "Health claims" section. The section makes no effort to be neutral and instead seems to indicate this relatively common beverage is some kind of dangerous and borderline poisonous snake oil with zero benefits. It does have nutritional value and millions of people drink it without any adverse side effects. Commercially produced kombucha is sold in grocery stores. It's lazy and incorrect to denigrate a harmless beverage simply because some new age types glommed onto it years ago. Kindzmarauli (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

And I've been reverted. The section is POV, yet I'm being told to shut up. I think that section needs to be expanded to include all health and nutritional information, otherwise it's purely negative. Kindzmarauli (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEDRS - the relevant guideline for claims regarding nutritional or health benefits. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not arguing against including the current information, I'm trying to say that it's a POV section without including some basic information regarding the nutritional content. Surely there's nothing controversial about saying how much vitamin C (etc.) is in kombucha? It would also be nice to edit the section so that it doesn't read as some kind of slam piece, which is how it currently appears to me (and I don't even like the stuff). Kindzmarauli (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The article already contains a section entitled 'chemical and biological properties', which states (amongst other things) that "Kombucha contains about 1.51 mg/mL of vitamin C." AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, nevermind. Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Kombucha Safety

Hello,

While the source for the line in the header description is legitimate, the context of it does not seem reasonable or appropriate for the page. No statistics or other corroborating information is included which would indicate health risks of a standardized, commercially produced kombucha product.

Quoted via the CDC website, "FDA has evaluated the practices of the commercial producers of the Kombucha mushroom and has found no pathogenic organisms or hygiene violations (5). However, because the tea is produced under varying conditions in individual homes, contamination with pathogenic organisms such as Aspergillus is possible."

I could find no references suggesting commercially produced kombucha associated with any health problems. The problematic issues arise from kombucha produced at home with no regulation. This should be noted in the wiki page as there are many food products (alcohol, cheese, cured meats, etc.) that are potentially dangerous when produced non-commercially and in the absence of a regulatory body, but which are perfectly safe when properly produced.

73.53.53.138 (talk) 05:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point. The CDC source you're quoting is from 1995, which is pretty old by WP:MEDDATE standards, but the wide-spread commercial availability is barely even touched on in the article. If that's expanded, and it looks like it should be, then it might make sense to change the lead. Here's one source: More research is needed. Grayfell (talk) 07:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

1. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00039742.htm

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Food and drink articles
• Low-importance Food and drink articles
• WikiProject Food and drink articles
• C-Class pharmacology articles
• Low-importance pharmacology articles
• WikiProject Pharmacology articles
• B-Class Skepticism articles
• Low-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles